Credit where credit is due -- Good job, Governor Ted!

Though it almost reminds me of something...

But I vote YES. Support the Gov on this one!

I'm hesitant. I'm all in favor of raising taxes for children's health care. I'm also in favor of the state levying a tax on cigarettes to recover the cost incurred by smoking.

But I fear that tobacco taxes have become popular because most of us don't have to pay them. The last sentence is most telling:

Chip Terhune, Kulongoski's chief of staff, said he expects voters would readily agree to a cigarette tax hike to fund children's health care, if the question were put to voters.

These taxes make it possible for all of us to pay for things like expanded health care for kids--things we should pay for--by putting the cost on a small segment of our society. Never mind that this segment has, on average, lower incomes and hence a decreased ability to bear that cost.

Also, as Frank points out, it puts the state in the absurd position where its efforts to meet one policy goal, decreasing nicotine addiction, trade off with its ability to meet another, providing health care to children.

It might be more difficult politically, but I might be happier if we were trying to secure children's health care in a way that spread the costs more fairly. I realize, though, that this might be the best we can do.

(By the way, just so I don't get accused of being a disgruntled smoker, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life.)

The gov’s proposal is disappointedly timid, hackneyed, and lacking in vision, especially in light of the political support he gained with the Democrats taking control of state government.

Where indeed is the fairness of targeting one small group of chemically addicted citizens to pay for the health care of children? Is this really the best he could come up with? And no, I am not a cigarette smoker.

If this is a preview of Gov K’s next term in office than it sadly looks be more of what we've seen in the past.

The fairness is that every pack of cigarettes costs the state a little less than $3.50 in additional uncovered health care costs. This plan wouldn't so much as add to the cost of cigarettes as it would end a long-standing subsidy of cigarettes.

Where indeed is the fairness of having me subsidize one small group of chemically addicted citizens?

The fairness is that every pack of cigarettes costs the state a little less than $3.50 in additional uncovered health care costs. This plan wouldn't so much as add to the cost of cigarettes as it would end a long-standing subsidy of cigarettes.

Where indeed is the fairness of having me subsidize one small group of chemically addicted citizens?

Seig Heil is about all I can say to this.

I don't smoke but it seems to me that proposing sin taxes on tobacco (or alcohol, or gambling, or sex) is not courageous leadership. Courageous leadership is proposing to tax the difficult targets like wealthy individuals and corporations in order to fund the unmet needs of society.

I think I remember having seen statistics that show that smoking tends to skew along economic and racial lines. An easy target for the governor and legislators, but not a very worthy one!

Having been raised by a father that smoked 3 packs a day, living a clouded smoke filled rooms, watching him slowly decline to the point where he cannot walk due to shrinking veins in his legs, 3 heart attacks and realizing that as I child I was subjected to this... yes, I support cigarette taxes.

Frankly, I am amazed how many young people smoke today just to be cool or rebellious. I am glad that I never took up the habit.

Let's face it, if there was no nicotine in cigarettes, less people would smoke. It is an addiction like any other.

Has anyone hanging around the governor suggested that users of cigarettes may quit or smoke less and that the tax will not raise $160 million? Has anyone close to the governor whispered in his ear that this will mean we have a vested interest in keeping smokers smoking?

And if it is our intent to maximise the number of smokers to provide $160 million, has anyone tripped to the notion that with all that secondary smoke there will be more kids in need of health care?

I smell stupidity!

As some of you know, I quit smoking three months ago after 33 years. I'm feeling great and wish I'd done it a long time ago.

I had been contemplating quitting for a long time, but the impending 84 cents per pack tax increase was the final motivator in my decision to quit. I had been spending about $180 a month on cigarettes and this was going to put my habit up to about $218. That's a lot of money to spend on a product which, if used properly, will kill you.

I don't know how many there are like me, but this tax increase may have the unintended consequence of decreasing overall tobacco tax revenue.

Secondly, I don't like sin taxes. People say, "I don't care because I don't smoke". True. But remember, for a pack and a half a day smoker that's $37.80 per month that will not be spent in your laundromat, your hardware store or your restaurant. Addicted smokers will buy cigarettes before food for their children or anything else. How about the unintended consequence of children of smokers going without because their folks keep smoking?

Sin taxes are very popular when the sinners are a minority. But remember what happened when Seattle floated a latte tax?

The next sin to be taxed might be yours.

Why do Oregonians think that smoker's should cover the responsibilities of society? I wish all Oregonians would step up and take credit for funding childrens' healthcare instead of dumping the costs on addicts that partake in a legal product. Since kids are fat, how about to funding childrens' health programs by taxing Nintendo games, potato chips, fast food and Pepsi? Why use an "adult" vice to pay for kids; modify children's behavior by manipulating the destructive items that they themselves consume...

torridjoe As I said, I doubt we'll get rid of all the smokers, and if revenue becomes that much of a problem we'll get it from somewhere else. But for now, it's perfectly rational to bring Oregon's tax in line with Washington's.

Don't forget, too, that the amount of revenue the state needs will actually decrease along with the number of smokers. Fewer smokers means fewer health care costs, which means less revenue needed to fund health care for low income families.

Yes, the state could eventually reach a point where the number of packs of cigarettes sold decreases so much that, even with the increased tax on each pack, the total revenue received decreases. But if your costs are decreasing, too, net income could remain unchanged.

Plus...

Since people tend to live longer when they aren't smoking, you'll be able to tax them for a longer period of time (amount of tax revenue from a dead smoker? $0...). :)

this is going to garner support because it's easy to want to penalize those "nasty smokers" so that "our innocent children" will have health care. it is however much more difficult to go after the corporations and the wealthy to find funding for health care for our children. much easier to judge something that has been labeled unacceptable.

one of the posters claimed that being rich doesn't dismiss you from being ill. what is true is that the wealthiest enjoy the best health because it is their wealth that buys the best health care coverage and treatment, the best, most healthiest organic foods, the best homes in the best (zoned) neighborhoods that are removed from electrical power substations and the like.

this is a stupid idea. it is time for our politicians to begin discussing policies that redistribute the wealth to ensure ALL have access to affordable health care (amongst other basic necessities). you cannot have a healthy, fair and just society unless this is part of the picture.

It wouldn't hurt any to take just a passing glance at alcohol's cost to society, and perhaps tax it at the same kind of rate. Oh, ooops, that would take the tax out of a minority. It always helps to have better lobbies and advertising.

Chuck Butcher It wouldn't hurt any to take just a passing glance at alcohol's cost to society, and perhaps tax it at the same kind of rate. Oh, ooops, that would take the tax out of a minority. It always helps to have better lobbies and advertising.

This might be worth looking at: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/245.html

The Spirits tax is already pretty high in Oregon, although none of the taxes listed for Oregon are as high as Washington's. Perhaps increasing all of them (excluding sales tax) would make some sense, as there are also strong health links to fuel exhaust and alcohol (especially among children whose mother drinks while pregnant).

I support it just as I support taxing the obese` ten cents a pound for every pound over AMA recommendations. As smokers are a minority in Oregon, and fat unhealthy people are the majority, I'm thinking we can probably generate enough of a revenue stream to not only provide our children with health care but perhaps even educate them.

Caveat: I hand roll "imported", i.e. exported to Cananda then "imported" to US, two or three cigaretts a day.

Frank Dufay:

I voted "yes" but I have to add I think it is bizarre to have any dependence on funding children's health care tied to feeding people's addictions.

Bob T:

Exactly. Smoking would need to be encouraged, as it already is in order to get the pot-hole filling money some of the tobacco tax already goes to.

This is the usual tax-hungry trick - we tax them because we can, and they can't go anywhere.

Bob Tiernan

I have a solution. Raise the marginal state income tax rate by 0.25% in all brackets and dedicate the proceeds solely to children's heath care and children's nutrition. At such time as we have national uiversal health care, the money can be spent solely on addressing childhood nutrition issues and maybe early childhood education (a/k/a readiness to learn).

Not sure my math skills are up to date, but wouldn't a marginal tax rate increase of 0.25% be equal to $250.00 extra tax per $100,000.00 of taxable income? With due respect to those getting by on minimum wage or whatever, that's not a lot of money.

My proposal requires guts and true leadership. Sin taxes (or whatever you call them) are just more of the same old BS.

I'd raise the cigarette two dollars over what it is now instead of 84 cents.

There is always a choice. If you don't want to pay for a pack of cigs don't pay for it. I have this to add though. If you don't want to breathe smoke don't go to places that allow smoking and don't work there. You have a choice in the matter, we all have choices.

Torrid -- thank you for getting this discussion back on message! This is about cost-recovery. If we get half of Oregon's smokers to quit, then yes; there will be less money coming in from this revenue source... and because the cigarettes cost the state's health care system $3.50, there will be even more money in the system to get these kids back on OHP (or whatever plan gets passed this session).

Anybody who doesn't like the cigarette tax idea has a responsibility to tell us their revenue proposal.

Wrong my friend. It is the responsibility of our elected leadership and paid policy wonks, who have far more time and expertise than the average citizen, to present sound, fair policies for taxation that can stand up to public scrutiny.

Otherwise I could pull a 10% flat tax out of my ass and have a more fair proposal than the governor’s.

Is it just me - or does Nina sound like a right-wing troll?

Simply put, anyone who proposes ideas that don’t conform with Democrat Party ideology as presented on this forum is a potential troll. Consider it a badge of honor.

Raise the marginal state income tax rate by 0.25% in all brackets

Would someone please explain "marginal tax rate" in terms someone who almost flunked college econ. could understand?

That is a very popular phrase, but am I the only person who doesn't understand it?

What about more income tax brackets so that people barely hanging on aren't paying at the same rate as management people making low five figure salaries or 6 figure salaries?

This looks good on the surface, but there's some fundamental unfairness involved. When Oregon settled it's lawsuit on our behalf with the tobacco companies, none of the revenue went to help smokers quit. I've been a smoker for 45 years and have tried to quit more times that I care to think about without success. I have no problem with a tax increase on cigarettes, if the revenue raised goes to help me, not someone else. How about directing at least some of that revenue into programs for smokers to help us to quit?

I voted yes. Please don't tax soda. I'm guilty!

Since we know that: - smoking is bad for you, - smoking cigarettes is horrible for children - second hand smoke is horrible for everyone - smoking costs society a LOT of cash

why don't we just skip the middle-man, and ban smoking. Period. No smokes to be sold in the state?

Seriously, here: if you really want to stop the destructive costs of smoking, AND are convinced that its such a burden on society, then you should work to ban it. <--if that is your opinion then anything LESS is being disingenious and meanspirited.

Oh, and I do smoke, but would love to see them banned for two reasons: 1. the chaos factor. Imagine the howls of protest from retailers, and the general public on quit day. Makes my anarchy bone tingle--the one next to the funny bone. 2. it might actually give me a good excuse to quit...sure I'd be grouchy for a week or so, but I wouldn't be alone.

of course, this won't happen.

But it would be funnier than anything else I have seen in a long while.

I'll put a disclaimer right up front, I smoke 1/2 pack Camel straights/day. I pay $5.00/pack for the privelege.

Now I certainly do not make any claims that cigarettes don't harm one's health but I'll be damned if I'll sit still and listen to junk about liquor taxes coming even close to recovering the cost of that particular drug. Physically & societally you'd be farther ahead to use heroin (assuming it were legal & dose controlled). Addiction would be a drawback. The prison population is composed of just exactly how many cigarette related crimes, just exactly how many women have been beaten within an inch of their lives, etc, how many car crashes are cigarette related? How many children go hungry or left alone over cigarettes? How much liver & brain cell damage from alcohol is ignorable?

I'll be damned if I'll try to say one good thing about cigarettes other than I enjoy it, don't play stupid games about liquor, you like it and that's end of that story. But don't even talk about social & health costs and ignore the brontosaurus in the living room and say you're "being fair." BS. You're being self-interested and self-serving if that critter stomping around in your living room doesn't get your attention.

Chuck nailed it, IMHO....

Why not just tack on a 'child tax' to anyone claiming children as dependants on their tax returns? At least then those with children would bear the costs, plus those of you who appear to believe that taxation is the magic cure for all of society's problems would be able to get your 'fix' as well....

For the record, I smoke a pack a day, and I have a child. Also for the record, [b]I[/b] provide health insurance for myself and my dependants. Perhaps if more would actually take responsibility for themselves this wouldn't be an issue now. Oh, that's right. It's easier to just take a handout from the government. Pathetic.....

Having already commented on this in another thread, let me add my support to what some others have said: This is a morally bankrupt proposal by incompetent leaders and selfish interest groups whose agendas are not nearly as noble as they so dishonestly argue.

As framed by the proponents themselves, this is not about raising tobacco taxes with all the allegedly salutory effects that would result if it discouraged people from smoking. The issue here, as framed by the proponents, is raising tobacco taxes as the primary means to pay for children's health care because he and our own party lack the moral courage and political competence to provide a sound financial basis for health care for all citizens including children. At the bottom line, the message we are sending to the children that we disingenuously profess to care so much about is that we will only pay for their health care if somebody else ruins their health. Otherwise, if this was about discouraging smoking as some of the dishonest proponents offer the rationalization, the very success of the effort would seriously harm efforts to provide health care for children.

I think it is instructive that many of the folks behind this, including the American Lung Association and other anti-smoking groups, also have been pushing measures to ban smoking in public places including parks. Although the fact is that all too frequently these folks have serious character defects and just want to control people for several reasons, when questioned they acknowledge there is no legitimate second hand-smoke issue and dishonestly argue it is because of the example it sets for kids. As I have already noted, their support of this measure proves they really don't care too much children or the hypocritical example they are setting.

I also want to squarely take on the point made early on by Anon because it demonstrates so well the fraudulent tactics of supporters. He/she cites a NY Times story that reports that asserts every pack of cigarettes sold costs $7.18 in health care costs and lost productivity and then goes on to make the false arguement that this plan wouldn't so much as add to the cost of cigarettes as it would end a long-standing subsidy of cigarettes. As already noted, the true dishonesty of that statement is that the taxes being raised would not go to pay for the health care of smokers. Instead they would go to provide health care for another group of people who don't smoke, that we are not paying for right now, and don't actually care about enough to establish a sound financial basis for funding their health care costs..

Furthermore, although I don't smoke and never have, unlike the proponents I am intellectually honest enough to admit that the claim of the industry spokesperson that the study presents the figures in a vacuum, without comparing smoking to the financial burdens other people place on society, nonsmokers with diabetes, for example. is valid. I'll go beyond that, though, and say that it is contrary to the values we profess to hold as progressives and Democrats to judge people based on the financial burdens they place on society due to health problems, self-induced or not. This proposal is nothing more or less than demanding that a group of people atone for what some selfishly and ignorantly judge to be unacceptable behavior.

If that is the disgusting and dangerous position that we now hold, count me out of the Democratic Party and instead as a political opponent.

Given the real problems we confront in this state and country, we could do with just one person of character integrity like Edward R Murrow, smoking cigarettes on TV if that is his choice, instead of all the low-quality elected representatives and activist leaders who have linked providing health care for children and taxing cigarettes in this way.

I'd like to know here and now what folks here who support this measure, and particularly our Democratic elected officials and anti-smoking activists, think of the fact that Barack Obama is a smoker?

I don't agree with their piecemeal bans. Just ban cigarettes altogether! They are a public health hazard.

Greg Tompkins:

I don't agree with their piecemeal bans. Just ban cigarettes altogether! They are a public health hazard.

Bob T:

I often wonder what it would be like now had tobacco been banned in the 20s or 30s. Would freedom-loving people be wearing T-shirts with a bog tomacco leaf on the front?

Bob Tiernan

I don't smoke (I actually despise smoking so much that I try to stay out of clubs that allow it), but levying this tax specifically against smokers seems misguided. My proposal is that the State take out a consumption tax in general. If they’ve got to tax something, Oregon State could tax soda, beer, cigarettes, bottled water, tea, milk, coffee, wine, etc. That way it gets all of us.

Really, why just “punish”, “penalize”, or force one small bracket of Oregonians to fund healthcare for Children? Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of all of us? Or, is this just some stunt to discourage smoking? If so, just outlaw it. I am sure a bill could be ushered into the session—or maybe not. What does TOFCO have cooking?

From my perspective, Chip, Tim and Governor Kulongoski need to go back to the drawing board and rethink this thing. It defiantly doesn’t seem very well thought out.

As for making JUST parents pay a tax for healthcare for their children, I don’t agree with that at all. Because children are important to Oregon’s future, we need to be sure that parents that can’t afford to provide it for their child have access to the schooling and healthcare that their child needs. I don’t have children, but I gladly pay for public schools. I see no different to pay a little extra for healthcare for those that need it.

One point that has been lost in this discussion is that Oregon is merely looking to equalize our tobacco rates with our Washington neighbors. Tobacco taxes there are just over $2.00 a pack and the sky hasn't fallen.

The other thing that people are losing sight of -- and I think this is really the key -- is that this proposal will extend coverage to Oregon's 119,000 uninsured children. There is a tremendous benefit of having Oregon kids show up to school healthy and ready to learn. This is the proposal most likely to get us there.

Some of argued that a tobacco tax is a cop-out in leu of other options, but I think that 1) underestimates the power of the tobacco lobby and 2) the fact that this Governor has also proposed other corporate revenue measures including, but not limited to, raising the corporate minimum and ending the corporate kicker.

This is important and solid public policy that will move our state closer toward universal coverage. It has my total support.

One more thing:

Dave Lister -- and congrats, Dave on your quitting -- argued that this will lead to an overall decrease in tobacco revenue. First, smokeless tobacco is also included, but more importantly, the revenue projections factor in likely dips in smoking. Encouraging to people to quit is a good thing, but it seems like you're assuming there's no economic benefit to the state when a person gives it up. There is. Also, the private sector realizes savings from more productive (and less frequently sick) workers.

Sorry the first comment, third paragraph reads "Some of argued...."

It should have read, "Some have argued..."

LOL! me a right-wing nut??? i've never voted for a conservative in my life! come on. i put forth my ideas on generating revenue to create health care for all--the money is there. it's just continuing to be shoved into the pockets of the wealthiest which is, sadly, a policy that has become both republican and democrat.

"4. Therefore let's increase cigarette taxes and essentially force those same economically disadvantaged Oregonians to pay for something that they could ill afford to pay for."

Yeah but they could just quit. And they should anyway.

Personally, I will always support any legislation that makes life harder for tobacco companies. Any customer this costs a tobacco company is a good thing, in my book.

Anyone who keeps smoking is volunteering to pay the cigarette tax. Thank them, and raise the taxes again.

Curt

Curt says:

"Yeah but they could just quit. And they should anyway."

So then get a pair and ban tobacco sales in the State.

Oh? Whats that, Curt? That would be infringing on personal liberty? Hmmm...but if its your moral position that people should just quit, why not help them along in their process?

Sorry, but I am just not buying the position that its OK to tax folks for something you don't believe you should be doing in the first place. Smacks of insincerity and pass-the-buck-ism (if thats even a word.)

I see a bunch of cowards...yes, COWARDS. They don't like smoking, but they want the taxes from smoking -- Indeed they are salivating for just that $$. Yet they are afraid to do what they really want to do: ban smoking (which I would support, by the way.)

If the state was serious about reducing the costs associated with smoking, they would just ban it. Of course, they won't: they are beholden to a tobacco lobby and a whole lot of money that gets shoved in their pockets, not to mention the general fund.

C'Mon, Oregon! Do it! Be the first state to ban tobacco.

Oh...don't forget: "Its for the Children!" :-)

Curt, despite the fact I am a non-smoker, I find people like you ignorant, selfish, and of low moral character in your anti-smoking prejudices. As already demonstrated, the position you advocate doesn't involve any genuine concern about providing health care for children as this measure dishonestly purports to do, because your goal is to stop people from smoking regardless of the impact on revenues required to fund health care. Furthermore, you don't care about the lesson it sends to children that our Democratic leadership only cares about funding health care for children to the extent that others will damage their health or kill themselves to pay for it.

Al Berta, what in the befuddled mind of folks like you who make this point leads you to believe there is any relevance or value in equalizing our taxes to Washington's? I've lived in both states, and I assure you, the activists behind this are just as selfish and hypocritical, the legislators and governor just as cowardly, and the health care system for children and public schools just as poor. If your aspirational level is to generally do as bad or misguided a job as your neighbor in civic life, than frankly you have little worthwhile to offer to the debate.

Of course, this is one of the weasely arguments that the ALA and other activists groups are using to push an agenda which they can't sell on it's own merits. Another commenter has already noted how Oregon's tobacco settlement is not being spent as promised. This proves says all that needs to be said about the deal-making that these folks make to further their own agenda, and why they have no credibility. Maybe instead, if we here in Oregon set the example by doing the right thing to fund health care for all in a sustainable way, and then readjust and realign our tax structure on tobacco taxes appropriately, Washington will learn something and follow suit?

The real evidence of your dishonesty, though, is that you also ignored the central argument I've made why this bill is NOT about providing health care for children. It is about anti-tobacco folks like you dishonestly using that issue to further your own selfish agenda. Nothing more, nothing less. The argument was already laid out and you refused to engage it. For the reason I give below in response to torridjoe, this is abysmal public policy, although not at all at odds with the extremely poor job we do here in the NW and Oregon when it comes to public policy.

To torridjoe I have to readily admit I'm not as hip as folks of the Web 2.0 blogger generation as he is. Therefore, I have no idea what he is trying to say with his comment:

I can certainly see the irony in funding health care for children on the basis of health-destroying behavior by their parents. But irony is not really a good basis on which to decide public policy, is it?

I can say that there is a world of difference between irony and hypocrisy (as consulting any un-hip dictionary well quickly show), and in this era we are finding that the negative political consequences of the latter are significant. Since from his previous comments on other threads I honestly cannot tell whether he actually has the intellectual depth to know the difference between the two, and I know that in the Web 2.0 world intellectual depth is not regarded to be a valuable attribute, not much more can be said.

Finally, I repeat that I don't smoke, I don't support the tobacco industry by a long-shot, and I feel all corporations should be stripped of personhood so they have no First Amendment protected voice in politics. I have no problem with taxing tobacco companies and putting those proceeds into the general fund (I note that the proponents have demonstrated no desire to do the work involved in making that happen.) So I have no self-serving interest in the position I take. Rather, I am solely concerned with the utter venality of the proponents of this proposal and the extremely ignorant public policy it represents. Everytime I hear the proponents make their selfish arguments of expediency, the first thing that comes to mind is Ollie North's testimony to Congress in the Iran-Contra matter about how neat the guns-for-hostages deal was. I'm not asserting any equivalency between the specific matters; rather I am drawing attention to the low moral quality of those who advocate that type of unprincipled deal-making to further their own selfish agendas when their deal-making involves critical public policy issues like health care.

I also notice that none of the cowardly proponents here have had the guts to offer their thoughts about Barack Obama being a smoker. Afraid you'll be exposed as really having the same kind of hateful mentality as Limbaugh?

There have been a couple honest posts on this subject, a couple.

There is no benefit to smoking or drinking alcohol, they are pleasure drugs, period. Don't make shit up about it.

Second hand smoke kills, second hand alcohol kills. If you can make the rationale for the 1st you have to accept the 2nd & the second kills & maims a lot more, you've got less ground to stand on for bans or confiscatory taxation of smoking. There is absolutely no comparison in dollar cost to society between smoking & drinking, not close, alcohol wins hands down.

Nobody asks any of you to like smoking, or drinking, but don't even play stupid games about it. You will lose, the numbers aren't even close. The exact and only reason this debate goes on is because there are more drinkers than smokers (well advertising helps). There is more death and destruction at the hands of the pushers at Seagrams, Miller, Bud, etc than Phillip Morris, RJR, etc. Just because some drink has pictures of a swingin' party going on & says "drink responsibly" doesn't mean they aren't purveyors of death and destruction. Drugs are just exactly that, drink them, smoke them, eat them, inject them, they're still drugs and they still have consequences, all of them.

All this heat about cigarettes wouldn't be stupid PC if it were handed around equitably, but narrow application of a principle is no more than PC. Let's be real straight about this, our society would be a hell of a lot better off if I smoked a carton a day than if I drank, now that's me & quite a few others, but here's a little jem for you, cigarettes DO NOT cause cancer, if they did every single smoker would have it, benzene does cause cancer, everybody with a certain dose gets it. Alcohol does not cause addiction, but everybody above a certain dosage gets stupid and dangerous and even dies. Thanks to the effects of the drug, you get stupid and dangerous before you recognize it.

"Well he's being awful snotty," no, I'm not. You are. You're playing a crooked hand with a stacked deck and treating me like some kind of smoke thug on no rational basis. You want to play this game on an even field and I'll go right along with it. You can tax my drug into oblivion, just as long as you take your's along with it.

Don't bother with reponsible drinkers...etc...bs. Alcohol is toxic, period. Small doses have cumlative effects, period. Dead brain cells are dead, period.

Chuck, you are right:

Smoking doesn't cause cancer...but it sure doesn't help matters.

We all have known someone who smoked until the day they died...sometimes it was at 85 (like my grandmother--she died of "natural" causes--she just got old.)

Sometimes it was at 30.

The simple truth of the matter is that if folks don't like smoking, and don't like the effects that smoking may cause, they should come right out and show their cards, instead of being holier than thou..."we know whats better for you than you do."

I would be very interested to know what sort of taxes these same folks are considering for Methadone. After all, that is very analagous to smoking: its legal, its a maintenance drug, and its effect on society is quite pervasive. Its also easier to quit than tobacco, so there MUST be a good little sin tax in there somewhere. At least to cover the cost of prevention efforts and quit programs, right? How about we use the tax on Methadone to disuade others from taking up drugs?

Ideological consistency be damned! We want the money, honey. snort.

Jeez Kari why are you taking such offense to the comments? The policy is morally bankrupt in numerous ways and stinks of hypocrisy, but so are many public policies. Of course the poll is 75/25 in favor, under 20% of people smoke. I like the idea of taxing the ultra wealthy because I'm not one of them.

It would seem much more fair to use the money to help people quit, recoup health care cost of smokers, and teach society to remain childless unless you can afford one (I KNOW I can't afford one)

but wait, TorridJoe!

The proposal at hand stands to improve the health of Oregon's children on the basis of Oregon's smoking adults killing theirs.

but I don't smoke around my kids. Or at least very rarely...like once or twice a year when we are in the woods and even then, I walk a considerable distance away.

I don't get why I should pay MORE to kill myself, when I am NOT exposing my children to smoke at a quantity that will cause measureable future harm.

If its cuz of measureable harm that some irresponsible parents are doing to their offspring, then we have another issue here...

Again...we are back to my point...if its because smoking kills...ban it. I won't work, but at least lets be honest here. No need to sugarcoat it behind child welfare. If its a truly destructive behaviour, it shouldn't be allowed.

Passing further taxation based upon the assumption that people are doing bad things to their offspring is a bit creepy, irony or no.

Although torridjoe says:

I was using the English language., The proposal at hand stands to improve the health of Oregon's children on the basis of Oregon's smoking adults killing theirs. Are you saying you don't grasp the irony there

I'd say first he needs to get a dictionary and read it:

irony - 1) the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning, 2) an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

hypocrisy - a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

I fail to see where the irony lies, but I can clearly see the hypocrisy of the proponents in this proposal. As I said, hypocrisy leads to very many bad political outcomes, with BOTH central Asian wars we are currently losing being exhibit 1. It think that is all that needs to be said about why this is very bad public policy.

And Kari, to this comment:

Meta-note: For everyone who thinks the comments here at BlueOregon reflect the opinion of BlueOregon readers, I simply point you to the vast-number of anti-cigarette-tax comments -- while the buzz poll above goes the other way.

Although your grammar is fine, I'm having a bit of trouble following what you are saying here. You seem to be noting that the anti-tax tilt of the comments here does not match the pro-tax tilt of readers as represented by the sample of poll respondent. Beyond that, I can't tell if you feel the anti-tax tilt, as well grounded as many of the anti-tax arguments are in critical reasoning and sound Democratic/progressive values, presents a bad image of Blue Oregon while the poll projects a good image, or if you are just making a reasonable observation.

With that caveat, my response is that if this poll is statistically representative of Oregonians who profess to be sympathetic with Blue Oregon's political tilt and therefore read Blue Oregon, which of course is something we have absolutely no way of knowing, it would speak rather poorly of NW/Oregon "progressives" as a group. It also would give a good clue why we have so much trouble enacting a genuinely progressive agenda: Too many people who say they are progressive in the NW and Oregon really are anything but that. It would be quite plausible to argue from these results that in fact they are selfish, elitist, and if the low quality of the pro-arguments made here is representative, rather ignorant of what true progressives values really are.

Kari writes:

Meta-note: For everyone who thinks the comments here at BlueOregon reflect the opinion of BlueOregon readers, I simply point you to the vast-number of anti-cigarette-tax comments -- while the buzz poll above goes the other way.

I would generally think that the lack of pro-tax comments would be indicative of a poorly articulated position.

In short: this idea SOUNDS great, but once the surface gets a good scratch and a closer examination, the foundation is revealed to be rather faulty logic and on quite shaky ground, fiscally.

I have a feeling this would pass if taken to a vote, but who doesn't wanna vote for children? The question to us is: is this a progressive tax, or a regressive tax, and what is our ultimate purpose in dealing with tobacco products: should it be treated as another revenue source, or should it be discouraged.

If the claim that it is so incredibly harmful to society as a whole is true, then it should be banned, along with lawn darts, heroin and driving with a martini in hand. If its just another revenue source, then smokers might want to start bargaining like other revenue sources...say Nike or PGE.

I applaud the silent ones for their choice to give health care to children...I give them a very lewd raspberry for that same choice, decrying their eagerness to consider tobacco money (by some estimations nothing better than blood-money) as just another revenue source.

Oh, so it's about Liberty, and cost recovery then? Ok...I'll bite this lame ham sandwich:

If we are going to be consistent in the defense of liberty (your suggestion is that smoking is a liberty,) then we really must change the laws to legalize all drugs, and tax them in proportion to the amount of societal damage that they cause. Nyet. Not gonna happen.

Now, is it REALLY a liberty? If its as destructive as some here believe, then it shouldn't be allowed...we ban things all the time that are destructive to society: lawn darts, cocaine, heroin, yard incineration of garbage, styrofoam cups. All those things could be considered a "liberty."

If its a matter of personal liberty, then we need to let the kids go play with lawn-darts, cocaine and heroin. They should burn the refuse from same in their yard while drinking tequila from styrofoam cups.

Poppycock! This is no more about personal liberty than it is about my Aunt Carol's hair after a windstorm. Masking a desire to tax a minority in society behind a comfy little bubble of "liberty" is hokey and disengenious.

Further, I would posit that this in a poor way to "recovering the social costs of smoking." You will not ever be able to recover the costs of smoking. Period. End of story. No matter how much money you take from the smokers and plough into the general fund the smokers will still eat up that and more.

So we are left with 2 options: a PARTIAL recovering of money, or an elimination of future costs. Tax or ban. I would suggest to you that banning is the more conclusive way to go, but I have a feeling you will hide again behind the liberty excuse (the second favorite behind "its for the children", btw,) but make no effort to legalize all the OTHER things that should be covered by the overall umbrella we call liberty.

Lastly, adherence to a "progressive" ideology doesn't abdicate social responsibility: we have a duty to our young to eliminate certain factors that have been proven to be bad for society, like lawn darts, et al. If this fails your definition of "Progressive" but increased taxation makes it into that definition, I am afriad that we might have a failure to communicate.

torridjoe provides us with a nice succinct example of the low-level of critical thinking that afflicts too many in this country, and in particular the NW/Oregon. By contrasting this statement:

As for the definition of irony, how ironic that someone would post the applicable definition--an outcome contrary to expectations--and then claim that I had the definition wrong. The expected outcome of smoking is a dimunition of public health--and yet this proposal enhances it.

With his previous statement:

I can certainly see the irony in funding health care for children on the basis of health-destroying behavior by their parents. But irony is not really a good basis on which to decide public policy, is it?

we can clearly see the kind of befuddled arguments, if not outright dishonesty, offered by proponents of this proposal.

In his previous statement, the reference is to irony, misuse of the term as it is, in the concept of funding health care in a way which depends on others killing themselves. As I have already pointed out, there is hypocrisy in folks who claim they care about children, but who in fact just play to that concern to help them further their anti-tobacco agenda. Furthermore, there is no unexpected outcome of any type directly implicated here; most of the pro-tax folks I talk to fully expect and hope that increased taxes will cause fewer people to smoke, that this will decrease the revenue available for funding health care for chldren, and that is fine with them. Since they don't admit that publicly unless and until they are called out on it, I also see the hypocrisy in that.

Now, in his attempt to play word games to save face, torridjoe's befuddled later statement turns on a misreading of the second definition of irony -- a situation in which people have and act out of one expectation but another results -- and then applies it to a different proposition than in his first statement.

For his later statement to be a correct application of the definition of irony, he would have to be arguing that the intent and expectation of the proponents in this proposal is to cause society to act in a way which is detrimental to public health, but which would turn out to have the unexpected effect of being salutory to public health. That is, the proponents' intent is to encourage people to continue to smoke because it damages public health (that has to be the expected outcome if the unexpected outcome is an improvement in public health), yet it would turn out unexpectedly that whatever level of smoking occurred generated more revenue, and the health care that revenue funds would result in a net improvement in public health.

Leave aside for now the fact that it there is no reason to believe, based on any evidence the proponents have offered, that this tax will result in a net increase in public health in real life. Proving that involves many factors the proponents have not put into evidence. Also, leave aside any debate about the ethics and morality of trying to improve the health of one group in a way that depends on decreasing the health of another group. Frankly, the proponents frequently and overtly demonstrate they don't really care about moraility and ethics. They are smug, selfish, judgmental folks who really just want their way, and pretty much will say anything to a credulous public they feel will help them get their way. And the politicians like Kulongoski and our Democratic leadership who have decided to sell providing health care for children in this way demonstrate everything we find venal and ignoble about politicians.

The bottom line here is that proponents are not offering this with the intent of fostering some level of smoking and the expected outcome being a decrease in public health, with prescient observers just noting that contrary to the reasons and expectations of the proponents the unexpected outcome will be an increase in public health. To the contrary, the proponents are trying to sell this with the noble, if disingenuous, claim and expectation of improving public health by funding health care for children. Furthermore, only if pushed do they angrily admit their real goal is to decrease smoking regardless of whether or not that acts contrary to their public claim of funding health care for children. That is hypocrisy pure and simple, and irony as properly defined is nowhere to be found anywhere in anything torridjoe has argued.

Since you're not sharp enough to understand why you don't know what irony means torridjoe, I'm not at all surprised you are not quick enough to grasp the dangers of hypocrisy in politics, even given the example of two losing wars we have become mired ourselves in as a result of lying and hypocrisy.

I'm not convinced that there has been an honest study as to the monetary costs of smoking to society. Do smokers deaths really cost that much more than non-smokers deaths? They usually die younger, but do they cost more?

When my dad died of heart failure and refusing his meds at 85 years old, the doctor put smoking as a contribting cause because he had smoked cigars in his middle age even though he hadn't smoked one in twenty years. He lived longer than all his brothers and sisters and none of them smoked. When i die those costs might be figured in too. I smoked off and on 'till I stopped in about 1985.

I think this tax is a cowardly way to go after money for health care for our children. We need to get rid of the insurance compamy leeches and set up a single payer system funded progressively by us all based on income and a retun to taxing corporations.

If we continue with these "tax the minorities we don't like" policies to get a few bucks here and there, we are just hiding from the scarey work of confronting and dealing with our huge problem = THE MOST INEFFICIENT, EXPENSIVE AND UNEQUAL HEALTH CARE IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD!

politicallogic writes: Since you're not sharp enough to understand why you don't know what irony means torridjoe...

Hey...lets keep this civil. Its NOT about attacking someone you disagree with, its about debating the ideas they put forth.

I can attest that torridjoe is quite sharp. While we DO disagree on this issue, he isn't a dullard by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't make it personal, or soon, you won't have anyone to play with, Logic.

JJ Ark: Curt says:

"Yeah but they could just quit. And they should anyway."

So then get a pair and ban tobacco sales in the State.

Me: It'll never happen. I'd vote for such a law, if one came up. But I wouldn't spend time or effort trying to pass one -- there's no point. But -- studies upon studies show that increasing cigarette prices reduces kids smoking. So, that works fine for me.

And "Politicallogic" says: Curt, despite the fact I am a non-smoker, I find people like you ignorant, selfish, and of low moral character in your anti-smoking prejudices.

Me: And I find you rude and poorly socialized. This is easy.

But I'll be civil from now on if you will.

No, really. Cigarette smoking is voluntary. Tobacco taxes are taxes smokers choose to pay. Unlike property taxes or income tax, any time you don't want to pay that $2 to the gummint, you can just.. not buy that pack of cigarettes. Simple.

I know people smoke because they're addicted. I smoked for years and still do at times. If I do smoke, I'm aware I'm paying a lot of tax for the pleasure. If I don't want to pay that tax, I don't have to at all.

And then politicallogic says: The real evidence of your dishonesty, though, is that you also ignored the central argument I've made why this bill is NOT about providing health care for children. It is about anti-tobacco folks like you dishonestly using that issue to further your own selfish agenda.

And I say: I'm not dishonest at all. I'm very open about how I feel about Big Tobacco and smoking in general. And the money collected would, indeed, go to providing health care for children, so I dunno exactly why you would say this bill isn't about doing exactly what it does.

well first i wish to honor kari's apology as well as his acknowledging me as a real person. this wasn't the first time i left comments on this site.

There are no health benefits to cigs, and substantial benefits to booze.

i'm sure this comment has been argued already but i thought i'd toss in my two-cents. what has been proven thus far as far as benefits in booze is actually found in red wine--it is the antioxidants that come from the grapes. alcohol in and of itself is a toxin to the body. a recent study i saw on television said you would have to drink numerous glasses of wine a day though to see any real health benefit. (i always thought some of our european neighbors were healthier not because they drank wine w/their meals but because they sit down with friends/family--no tv, no radio, no computer--and enjoy one another's company.)

this new tax idea is still a very absurd, unfair one. why in the world do so many supposed progressives lack the ability to talk about redistributing the wealth? since kari says progressives do not talk about that term these days, my question is why not?

i guess i'm not a progressive then. hmmm.....i wonder what label i should now make up for myself.........

It appears to be a temporary. This analysis was backed by Scotland and Ireland as well. There is a massive dip initially, then it climbs to somewhat stable levels, admittedly less than before.

Look, if we are serious about kids staying off tobacco, then a ban is about the only way to go, no matter how marginally successful it would or would not be.

A tax does nothing to inhibit the smoking of children. Or did we forget that selling tobacco to a minor is already illegal? They don't tend to buy the cigs they started with...tending to steal them, or trade for them, sometimes using a strawman purchaser.

The over-reaching in this thread is amazing. The pro-tax folks would have us believe that all the problems with smoking will be solved with one additional tax: children smoking, health care costs, burden on society, city streets being cleaned up, all while inconveniencing a small few folks who indulge in a repulsive, yet somehow still legal addiction.

Incrementiallism and creep of regulation and taxation is written as being "for the children."

This is a cannard. It is about as UNprogressive as it gets. It assesses a tax on those least able to afford, mocks them in their addiction, and runs perilously close to a tyranny of the majority.

Once more: if smoking exacts such the toll on society as a whole, it shouldn't be allowed. Screw namby pamby taxes...go all out. Ban it.

JJ Ark-

That was my point earlier. Quit pussyfooting around and actually stop the problem dead in its tracks. Just have a referrendum that says "should smoking be banned in the State of Oregon?" YES OR NO. Don't go about these stupid piecemeal bans that cost too much money to implement and leave people feeling singled out.

JJ Ark, please spare me condescending lecturing about the immaterial NW/Oregon style "let's be nice" stuff that is best reserved for kids. It is quite inappropriate when you know nothing about someone you are attempting to lecture (and is quite different from aggressively analyzing the quality of the argument someone advances). torridjoe has shown a particular level of ignorance in this argument, and frankly there is no principled reason to call it other than what it is or be nice about it because he persisted in his argument. My personal experience is that the contributions of those who value the rather immature NW/Oregon of false "civility" over substance, and who make similar comments in a negative judgmental way (and I'm not assuming you are), are not really missed in serious political debates if they go away in a fit of childish pique.

Curt, naturally someone like you who of your own volition voiced self-centered, arrogant views at the outset would find anyone rude who accurately and appropriately points this out. Re-read my comments to JJ Ark if you need the point driven home any harder. Fortunately, folks like you always provide additional examples to prove the point nicely: My comments have specifically and solely addressed the moral and fiscal hypocrisy, not to mention the intellectual shortfalls, of the proponents advancing this first and foremost as a measure to provide health care for children. That is because this is precisely how Kulongoski and our party has presented it, even if intolerant, unprincipled, condescending anti-tobacco interests have dishonestly attempted to leverage this presentation to advance their own agenda. You dunno exactly why you would say this bill isn't about doing exactly what it does, perhaps because you have ignored the argument being made, by your own admission support the bill for your own self-centered reasons, or, as your own comments suggest, you're kind of dishonest or kind of dumb. Only you can know your reasons for sure.

Nina, I'm pretty sure you don't associate yourself with the particular argumentation style I pursue here in my judgment that we progressives first need to get over an egotism and arrogance that has been counterproductive to pursuing our agenda for the last two decades. Regardless of that, I do want to associate myself with your final comment. If we can't get over those character flaws that are fatal to our agenda, I suppose I too won't be calling myself a progressive anymore. Apparently that term will have been appropriated, at least in the NW and Oregon, to represent a condescending, judgmental form of politics and a sense of entitlement, rather than the core set of values putting people, economic opportunity, civil liberties, and human rights ahead of other goals.

Finally kevin, your heart is in the right place, but don't be misled that a certain level of numeracy or verbal skill equates to critical thinking skill. As a trivial, but meaningful example, I'd point you to the fact that the GREs we use to assess how well students might do in graduate school include separate component to more or less independently evaluate all three skills. That is because they are separate skills even though most people don't understand that. In the last couple of decades, in step with the damage we've done to our schools, we've hopelessly confused the three because critical thinking is perhaps the hardest thing to develop and keep sharp. Even though I frequently agree with torridjoe's comments on other issues, many of those issues are less consequential than this. His floundering with the concept of "irony" and the real world impacts of "hypocrisy" in politics, to the point of pursuing a hopelessly muddled argument in support of his position, is a valid target of pointed, aggressive criticism.

The blogosphere has worsened this situation because, like syndicated political talk radio (most of it right-wing) that emerged in the 90s, it is about exhibitionism of a sort (i.e. the mindset that I have opinion and putting that in front of people is the primary goal rather than having a well-informed opinion) and therefore it is conducive to demagoguery. Unfortunately, in that environment achieving status arguably depends first on verbal skills, second on numeracy, and last on critical thinking. Civility has a place of course, but all too often in the NW folks fall back on a false notion of "civiilty" and lob allegations of "incivility" as an excuse to avoid the hard work of being well-informed and developing that least-valued skill, critical-thinking. This seems to particularly be the case when arguments they advance out of an egotistical desire to be heard and get their way are found wanting. I think we can safely point at the state of our tax system, our schools, our infrastructure, and our health-care system as failures to date of that political style.

torridjoe - Your first two comments address comments that aren't not mine, so it is unclear what you are trying to do with your argument.

Your nuance about an argument for not rejecting the tax is rather irrelevant in this case since it takes an affirmative action to pass the tax. The hard, cold political reality is that proponents want the legislature to take a specific action for which those legislators will be judged come election time. In this case the proponents claim it is health care for children, but in fact it is furthering an anti-tobacco agenda by passing a tax, without really providing a sound financial basis for providing health care for children. So the onus is on proponents to make a compelling case the legislators will have to pay for with their jobs if the only thing that results is selfish, judgmental anti-tobacco activists get their way but we don't see the health care payoff (which we can't if the real goal of the anti-tobacco activists to decrease smoking and therefore revenues comes about).

The proponents' argument is one which does not pass the moral smell test because it is trivially shown to be little more than a hypocritical attempt to hijack the noble desire to provide health care for children for their own selfish purposes. You have indicated you want the tax, so of course the hypocrisy is acceptable to you, it is a means to achieving the end you want, and so you are faced with the task of spinning arguments and misusing words to try to divert attention from the inherently unprincipled character of the proposal. The blatant hypocrisy of this measure makes it is susceptible to the foresight argument that politicians who voted for it should have known better when they passed such poor public policy. What is most disturbing, though, is that I am quickly discovering that the NW/Oregon progressive community is not even close to what it claims to be, and that this kind of selfish, elitist approach to public policy seems to be far too characteristic of the amoral, if not downright immoral, politics of at least a healthy-sized segment of the community.

Rather than deny the clear meaning of irony as you claim, I have analyzed why you misused the word whose meaning you interpret and use superficially, albeit incorrectly. I know in this time of declining critical thinking skills it is considered valid argumentation to simply make didactic assertions like Balderdash ... because there is no fundamental understanding of the fact that words have meanings. When we use them in debate we enter into a moral contract to use them correctly to communicate, or we are susceptible to legitimate criticism as either being ignorant or dishonest. That usage involves properly applying the definition to earn the right to leverage the emotional content of the word.

You amply demonstrate the erosion of proper knowledge of language we also suffer from in these propagandistic times are misusing the word irony in exactly the way I have described. Your comments as originally set down, and interpreted in that context as you have further developed them and the failed attempt I have highlighted of trying to turn them around, do not describe any accepted use of the term "irony" which is unexpected outcomes that contrast with the explictly stated and expected outcomes claimed by the proponents. You have to demonstrate what the expected outcomes are, and then demonstrate how and what unexpected outcomes result to demonstrate "irony".

On the other hand, if you want to accept that the proponents are "hypocritical" and the expected outcomes are different they claim, so you can make some kind of argument about "irony", that's your right. However, without accepting that claim of "hypocrisy", the argument you make has no "irony" in it: The outcome of child health care or net improvement in public health is not unexpected by the proponents, since that is what they are offering publicly as the goal and expected outcome. Of course, if you also want to argue that those outcomes are unexpected to actually make your argument about "irony" you are also free to do that. I note thought that combining "hypocrisy" with the claim that the proponents knowingly don't really expect the outcomes they explicitly claim - properly called "lying" - hardly makes their case more appealing. So I strongly encourage you to go for it. I've often noted on this blog that the dishonesty of proponents for some policies which are really not progressive at all makes the best argument against those policies.

The proponents know that they do not have the moral high ground on this, despite the fact they have grown lazy and accustomed to dishonestly claiming the high ground for lack of sophisticated, principled challenges. Your misuse of the combined semantic and emotive content of the word "irony", and particularly your disreputable attempt to re-spin that misuse into an attempt to lay claim to that moral high ground just further highlights the moral low-ground that the proponents of this health care measure actually inhabit.

No matter how much you resort to the propagandistic technique popularized by the right wing of simply asserting otherwise, your misuse of the word "irony" does not become any more correct. Nor does the refusal of you and other proponents to admit that "hypocritical" is the proper adjective for this proposal, as the governor and our party have themselves chosen to frame it, become any more honorable.

kevin - I appreciate your sentiments, and in respect of your honest response I would offer for your consideration that the reality of politics might be somewhat different from the popular the "battle"-"war" formulation to which you allude. In politics, people respond to the clear articulation and strong defense of values they agree with. It's true that there will be a percentage of folks who are turned off by style of argumentation (which has nothing to do with the underlying logical validity) because they put a high value on a false notion of "civility", but I think you'll find those folks are a smaller percentage than you might think when they must trade that off for other values. Most people recognize the dangers of political hypocrisy when that hypocrisy is translated to poor public policy, and recoil in disgust when that hypocrisy is fairly explained and highlighted.

My honest belief is that on first reaction a small majority of folks for their own selfish anti-tobacco reasons support this proposal and really just view the idea of funding health care for children as a fig-leaf to cover their less than noble intents. (Hence my earlier allusion to Ollie North's comment about how "neat" the guns-for-hostages trade was in Iran-Contra.) Other folks have gone into all the rationalizations people will offer, why those rationalizations really are just base hypocrisy, and how the supporters are making the moral decision ignore those arguments. To that extent, the cynicism of proponents who have framed the issue in this way is validated.

Nonetheless, because this is horrendous and immoral public policy that also happens to give the lie to the supposed principled progressivism of the NW and Oregon, we have an obligation to at least offer principled opposition in the hope that there are just a few honorable senators and house members who might think otherwise about signing on to this particular formulation. The "battle"-"war" framing, while convenient, is only applicable to the extent one recognizes (and in respect of those who continously face injury or death in this time of real war) that politics is not war and is all about aggressively defending progressive values each time a challenge to those values arises. In fact, the utter dishonesty of proponents of this measure, in public and on this thread, has led me now to count myself out of that community, and instead focus my political energies on the twin battles of helping my elected representatives realize the political risks they face by whoring out to the unprincipled values of the false "progressive" community, and continuing to advocate for genuine progressive values. Ciao.

Torridjoe writes:

If cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer, to what shall we attribute the 400,000 deaths caused by smoking every year??

That figure is made up not of folks who smoked all their lives, and the cancer was directly attributed to died of a smoking related illness, but folks who smoked at one point in their lives.

Case in point is my grandmother who smoked off and on for 20 odd years. She died at 85. Not an young age. She died of a neurological condition that had nothing to do with smoking, but everything to do with genetics (and seems to have skipped future generations, thankfully.) Her cause of death was considered a cigarette smoking ailment.

Could smoking have contributed to her demise? Sure! It probably didn't help. However, her cause of death wasn't cigarettes, even tho she went down in the CDC MMR as a "smoking related death."

To be sure, folks do die of cancer and such that is directly linked to smoking, and there is a higher incidence of cancer in those who smoke. No denying that. But including someone who dies at 85 in those figures is misleading at best.

Again, if one wishes to prove a cause/effect relationship, there must be solid evidence behind that cause/effect relationship...ie everyone who smokes (or a vast number of those who do) die of smoking illnesses.

I don't ahve time to break down the numbers tonight, but if someone wants to find the rate of death/overall population and compare that to the rate of smoking/overall population and and then see what they come up with, I have a feeling it would be interesting.

Respectfully, Torridjoe, I doff my hat to thee :-P

To those who have posted and said they are unable to quit:

I was unable to quit also until I tried welbutrin (zyban). It worked for me.

To those who say it is a cost recovery proposal:

The governor says it is for the children. Is it for smoking children?

Kevin writes: "Hell, mental defectives cost society tons of money... thanks to Reagan. Should we find some way to make them pay for that too, albeit in the name of doing barely related?"

Sorry, Kevin, but that analogy doesn't fly. Smoking is a choice. Being disabled is almost never a choice for the people involved.

I sympathize with your conclusions, but that analogy is false.

Politicallogic is working very hard to not talk about the actual subject at hand, and to obfuscate it as much as possible. PL uses the same shtick Lars Larson does when he has a weak position.

Frank's right... Who in the realm of possibility could have known over the last few years that smoking of all things would be harmful to their health and be addictive? Gve me a break -- like anybody takes up smoking not knowing the information out there.

And of course we have the knee-jerk response to all of society's ailments: Make business pay for it! Like Oregon's small business owners are just too flush with cash... hit them up for anything on your legislative wish-list!

Frank, start your own business, run it for a few years, take a look at your current payroll taxes and profit margins, and then come back and make that suggestion again.

You are right JHL. Making business support our health care puts us at great disadvantage when competing world-wide. We need single payer.

Logic: Curt, naturally someone like you who of your own volition voiced self-centered, arrogant views at the outset would find anyone rude who accurately and appropriately points this out.

Me: What's self-centered and arrogant about saying people should quit? They should. They know it, I know it, you know it.

Logic: Re-read my comments to JJ Ark if you need the point driven home any harder. Fortunately, folks like you always provide additional examples to prove the point nicely: My comments have specifically and solely addressed the moral and fiscal hypocrisy, not to mention the intellectual shortfalls, of the proponents advancing this first and foremost as a measure to provide health care for children.

Me: Okay, you don't know me, so you can't possibly know anything about "folks like me". It is, indeed, true that you have accused the proposal and its proponents of hypocrisy and intellectual inadequacy. However, I don't know what's hypocritical about raising tobacco taxes (always a good thing) or using the money for kid health care (also always a good thing). Maybe "hypocritical" isn't really the word you meant to use -- I really don't know.

Logic: That is because this is precisely how Kulongoski and our party has presented it, even if intolerant, unprincipled, condescending anti-tobacco interests have dishonestly attempted to leverage this presentation to advance their own agenda.

Me: See, there you go again. "Intolerant, unprincipled blah blah blah".. Look-- People can disagree with you and not be intolerant and unprincipled. They can disagree with me and the same holds. All it means is they disagree with you. Don't go running around calling people names. I don't see anything unprincipled in raising cigarette taxes.

Logic: You dunno exactly why you would say this bill isn't about doing exactly what it does, perhaps because you have ignored the argument being made, by your own admission support the bill for your own self-centered reasons, or, as your own comments suggest, you're kind of dishonest or kind of dumb. Only you can know your reasons for sure.

Me: Let's revisit what you said, and what I said. You said this bill doesn't do what it's supposed to. I pointed out that, since it's supposed to raise tobacco taxes and it does, and since it's supposed to send that money to health care and it does that too, that it does, in fact, do exactly what it's supposed to do.

I'll leave your "dumb or dishonest" comment alone, assuming you merely typed it in a moment of weakness.

Is there a better way to raise money? Sure, probably. Is there a better way to run health insurance? Sure, probably. But this proposal is one of the ones before us, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. Certainly nothing immoral. Or arrogant, self centered, intolerant, unprincipled, or any of that stuff.

Curt

Karl Smiley:

You are right JHL. Making business support our health care puts us at great disadvantage when competing world-wide. We need single payer

Bob T:

Golly, it's that simple, isn't it?

Bob T

This whole topic is really beyond belief, in my opinion. Maybe the state should give some sort of credit to people who actually succeed in quitting smoking (do so in a very verifiable way, like frequent drug testing for nicotine). After all, the cost society pays for smoking related health care is substantial! Maybe the state should just offer a big amount of money if the smokers kill themselves using the wonderful death with dignity law, paid out to the smoker's children. Then they could use that money to buy their health care.

I am wondering if this thread wins the record for the most comments ever on Blue Oregon. Kari?

I don't think so, Dave. Unless I am mistaken, a post I wrote on gun control in 2005 garned 148, but this is a big long hunkahunka stinkin' thread ;-)

there most comments (after a cursory glance): http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/09/katu_to_air_fal.html 161 http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/07/lebanon_not_jus.html 165 http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/03/brown_is_the_ne.html 168

so Guns in schools, Path the 9/11, Lebanon, and Rasicm REALLY get the goat of folks.

amusing to say the least.

Why don't we make paying for children's health fair to all citizens. Tax coffee, toilet paper, soft drinks with sugar content exceeding 5%, fast food items exceeding a certain fat percentage, and snuff.

Hello everyone. Is there a separate thread on the "health insurance for all" pipe dream? I am very perturbed about this situation with regard to my own personal situation. I am employed full time and make a respectable income. Although my company's health insurance is very good it does not cover ANYTHING "mental health related". So I have to pay COMPLETELY out of pocket for psychiatric visits and medicine. I am diligent about this and remaining stable but it costs me approximately $600 a month! I have Bipolar disorder. Any while I don't like to use my "disability" as a crutch to justify grovelling in my own self pity at the same time it does cause me a LOT of problems in life! It's insulting to me that the Democrats have the gall to exult their accomplishment in passing the "mental health parity" provision. It's a big lie. I learned today that companies which are headquartered outside the state (which MOST are) can just decide to write their health plans on the states they are incorporated in to avoid this bullshit "mental health parity" law they bragged about so much! Just like they also promised to "cut student loan rates". When that was all said and done now it's "just for the needy". What they made sound like a benefit for ALL in society has now been limited to a very small minority - "the needy".... What exactly qualifies as "needy"? Illegal Mexicans who bring 20 kids into our country, pay NOTHING into the system, get their "earned income tax credit", send their earnings back into Mexico, benefiting THEIR economy and then demand we all lower ourselves to speak Spanish for THEIR benefit? And no I am not racist just a little embittered and justifably so! I speak 3 languages fluently, Spanish being one of them. I do see the importance in being multicultural and multilingual and think everyone should learn A second language in school but not being forced into Spanish simply out of convenience for the illegal Mexicans! I am so fed up with these liberal idiots who think government sponsored solutions to the problems are the answer to everything! It's utterly ridiculous! Their braggadoccio is entirely about making themselves feel important and piss on society for making such asinine and unequally applied laws! Anyway back to the health insurance issue. Now they are talking about having the state run the health insurance business. Can you imagine what a disaster that would be? These simpletons can't do anything right and now they want to toy with people's HEALTH? The good doctors will all flee in a mass exodus but the people will all be covered on health insurance! Sounds like their approach to business in Oregon too - make it so difficult to do business here that they all leave! I love our state, especially how people here genuinely care about each other and are actually NICE to each other (well not always but it's sure a lot better than other places). I just feel the government acts in such an incompetant and bumbling manner most of the time and hardly anything effective is ever done. Even when I was unemployed for a significant stretch of time the wonderful state and their "Oregon Health Plan" didn't cover me because they deemed I was "too rich" or "not needy enough" even though there was no way in hell that I could afford psychiatric visits. So what do they expect a crazy Bipolar not on meds, not working? Then I ended up in the hospital after an episode and that added to my pile of debt. This whole cycle is really ridiculous and I hope they do something about it, it's really bad!

The problem with the Gov's lame proposal is obvious from the totally side-tracked thread here. Smokers' rights is what generates the buzz, not the bankrupt health-care system. This plan just forces hapless people to invest in a broken system that serves corporate interests, not human. This lousy planning will write a large 'L' on the foreheads of the 'Ds'.

Frank -

I'll thank you not to insult my personal integrity without cause. I provide health care for my employees. And when times are lean, I make sure my payroll gets made before I get paid.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between a responsible small-businessowner who has concerns about unmitigated employer contributions versus a corporate robber-baron running a sweatshop illustrates the simple workings of a one-track mind.

It sounds like you think all business is evil and should be taxed within an inch of its life. I guess you just make that assumption naturally, eh?

Wearing my economist hat, an argument can be made that the fairest taxes that exist are those that work to capture negative externalities -- the social costs of self-interested behavior. (An ultra-geek handle for these, quoting a friend of mine -- is the Pigovian tax -- also spelled Pigouvian tax -- defined as a tax that addresses the negative externalities of a market activity. Okay, sorry for the geekiness.)

Smokers and tobacco companies impose public costs -- from stink to addiction to deaths to second-hand smoke -- and these public costs are not borne by the tobacco producer, the tobacco retailer, or the tobacco consumer. Anyone saying that a tobacco tax is not fair is missing the mark.

Of course, this post might merely be a lamer way of saying what Torridjoe already said above. But mehtinks a movement around progressive capitalism -- a system that does well and does good -- and that taxes based on social costs and ability to pay -- would be a worthwhile movement. And a cigarette tax would certainly fit in.

Although it made some sense to tax cigarettes for OHP, it doesn't make sense tax them for child health care. If we are going to apply torridjoe and Jefferson's logic to solve the problem, let's look at what behavior is most negatively affecting the health of Oregon children. While underage smoking continues to decline, childhood obesity is skyrocketing. Here's a study on childhood obesity in Oregon. 60% of adult Oregonians are overweight or obese. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture predicts that obesity will soon rival smoking as a cause of preventable death. (Newsweek, July 23, 2000; page 42). It appears that it would be far more progressive to tax junk food (salty snacks, fast food, pop, etc.) than it would to additionally tax cigarettes. The reality of the situation points to a balanced system of taxing behaviors linked to obesity and smoking for the benefit of both OHP and child health care.